Once Upon A Time There Was An Imperial President. . . Pelosi Explains To Five-Year-Old Why We Are Again At War

We have been following the abandonment of virtually core liberal values by Rep. Nancy Pelosi in her adherence to the cult of personality surrounding Barack Obama. From her attack on privacy to her new enthusiasm for war, Pelosi is the truest believer of the true believers surrounding Obama in the Democratic Party. Now she has been sharing a charming little story of how “Mimi” explained to their grandson how we are now at war. It turns out it is all about the children . . . not about the chemical weapons or reports that Obama is playing to turn the tide of the losing war for the rebels. Sort of like Save The Children . . . but with cruise missiles.

Here is Pelosi’s story on how you convince a five year old that war is a good thing:

REP. NANCY PELOSI: I’ll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he’s five years old. We’re not talking about war; we’re talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, ‘Well, what do you think?’ He said, ‘I think no war.’ I said, ‘Well, I generally agree with that but you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they’ve killed hundreds of children there. ‘ And he said, five years old, ‘Were these children in the United States?’ And I said, ‘No, but they’re children wherever they are.’

So I don’t know what news he’s listening to or — but even a five year old child has to — you know, with the wisdom of our interest has affected our interests or it affects our interests because, again, it was outside of the circle of civilized behavior. It was humanity drew a line decades ago that i think if we ignore, we do so to the peril of many other people who can suffer.

I love how she qualifies her remarks to the five year old that “we’re talking about action.” It is a point that would only be recognized by constitutional experts — and Pelosi grandchildren — as an excuse to relieve the President of securing an actual declaration from Congress. Pelosi wants to preserve the Imperial Presidency around Obama (and future presidents) by reminding her grandson that attacking another sovereign nation is no longer viewed as an act of war but just something relabeled as an “action” to maximize the unilateral authority of the President.

Of course, in her wartime story for toddlers, Pelosi does not mention the recent disclosure that it was the United States that gave Saddam Hussein intelligence used his widespread chemical attacks and then lied about knowledge and evidence of the attacks. She does not mention how the Syrian rebels include Al Qaeda allies and extremists who do such things as eat the hearts of the fallen and abuse their corpses in violation of international law. She does not mention how she has supported the continuation of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where hundreds of thousands, including thousands of children, have died. She does not mention the thousands of children who have lost their mothers or fathers in the service in Iraq where we started a war based on a false allegation of WMDs and then continued to wage the war even after acknowledging that our original claims were false.

80 thoughts on “Once Upon A Time There Was An Imperial President. . . Pelosi Explains To Five-Year-Old Why We Are Again At War”

Comment navigation

Mr. Kerry revealed a fine comedic sense that had previously escaped even his most appreciative fans when he offered a new argument for attacking Syria and claimed that “extremist groups fighting against the Syrian government would become stronger if the United States did not carry out a military strike [against the regime]. ”

Many observers agree that the brilliance of this performance demands that Mr. Kerry be given his own show and that he spent far to many years buried in the chorus of the senate where his innovative stand-up style was stifled by the stuffy conventions of the genre. Even the show case of the state department, his current venue, does not properly display the sheer inventive genus of this great performer.

The American government has already established its credibility with the rest of the world. The world knows the United States will predictably do the stupidest and most destructive thing possible in any given circumstance. The world hasn’t the slightest doubt about that. We’ve got credibility all right, just not the kind supposed by the amoral cretins who run our government.

And always remember, fellow Crimestoppers: “if we lose Vietnam, the dominoes will fall on us and America will die!” Repeat as necessary for four straight decades, or until the American people shout; “ENOUGH, DAMN IT!”

“The purpose of this book is to tell you what I tell governors, senators,and members of Congress; what I tell the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable; and what I present to CEOs and entrepreneurs every day across the country: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear.” …

“This book is not merely for politicians or business leaders; it’s for everyone who has an interest in or makes a living using and listening to the language of America. It is for anyone who wants to harness the power of words to improve his or her own life, and to ensure that the true meaning of these words is heard as they intended them to be” [emphasis added].

– Dr. Frank Luntz, Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear

Only a doubleplusgood doublethinker — i.e., cynical word magician for hire — could have written the last part of that last sentence without suffering a brain embolism from self-induced cognitive dissonance. I feel unclean each time I handle this foul little volume and I keep it in the farthest-right corner of the lowest shelf of my library so as not to soil the rest of my books. But one does have to know the enemy of one’s language, if not of thought itself, should one ever hope to know why Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Speaker John Boehner, and President Obama continuously babble meaningless Orwellian phrases like “kinetic action” when they really mean “unprovoked war of aggression.”

I disagree with Professor Turley that our government Beltway minions think like 5-year-olds. They just assume that we, the people, do. And if the American people allow the U.S. Congress to rubber stamp President Obama’s intended war crime against Syria, then the cynical marketers of messianic militarism will have assumed correctly.

In my opinion this is good stuff. It points out and pulls together facts and patterns that we can know independently.

The well publicized ‘panicked phone call’ ought to interest any one trying to access this situation. We know that the Assad regime invited the UN inspectors in. Others have wondered why the regime would launch a chemical attack practically on the day the inspectors arrived in country.

The ‘panicked phone call’ is presented by the US as evidence that Assad launched the attack. We know the Assad administration invited the UN inspectors in to the country. If the Assad administration also launched the attack why would representatives of the administration be panicked and trying to verify details of the attack? Doesn’t logic suggest that they would be panicked only if they did not order the attack and were trying to figure out whether rogue military units violated orders of if militias were trying to frame the regime?

In any case the T/O article questions whether there ever was a panicked telephone call in the first place and provides information that I had not read elsewhere.

The danger from residual levels of nerve agents remaining after an attack is well known. Any schoolboy fascinated with military weapons knows that decontamination of survivors of CW attack is necessary before medical support can proceed.

Some news reports have suggested vague explanations why first responders were not stricken when helping victims. My recollection is that one talking head on CNN offered that the victims were hosed down with water prior to receiving medial assistance.

The T/O article mentions reports that 6 doctors died treating victims. According to the US story the several attacks on 082113 dispersed enough chemical product to poison approximately 3500 survivors and kill an additional 1400 victims. Is the story of 6 dead doctors and washing with water consistent with the casualty figures alleged by US? I don’t know. But someone more familiar with chemical warfare probably does.

And there is the question of casualty estimates. The US alleges approximately 1400 fatalities including approximately 400 children. Other reputable sources suggest the attacks killed approximately 300 to 400. The discrepancy is huge. I am pretty sure the WAPO reported this wide variance in the casualty estimates several days ago. The LA Times has a similar article of 090413 “US figure for casualties in Syria attack much higher than others “.

I don’t think the difference between 1400 and 400 would necessarily influence by view of Assad or how he treats the citizens of Syria. But that difference might affect my view of the credibility of the group that claimed 1400.

All a person like me can do is sift through the reports and try to note the conflicts, contradictions and the tells.

I consider it telling that the administration claims that credibility requires a limited, warning ‘shot over the bow’ of the Assad regime but the first legislation presented by the administration for approval for congress is unlimited in duration or location. That ought to tell us all something about the direction and intent of the administration.

In fairness to the congress, I ought to point out that the senate committee recently limited the duration to (my recollection) 60 days with a possible 30 day extension after consultation with congress.

5-year-old-grandson: “Grandma Pelosi, why do you say ‘action’ when other people say ‘war’?”

Grandma Pelosi: “Well, as a very bad man, Dr Frank Luntz, teaches us: ‘It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear.'”

5-year-old-grandson: “But Grandma Pelosi, don’t people say and hear the same thing?”

Grandma Pelosi: “Not at all, little one. As a very nice English gentleman, George Orwell, once said: ‘[Certain words] are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different.”

5-year-old-grandson: “So when you say ‘action’ you mean one thing yourself but you want other people to think you mean something different? You lie to other people?”

Grandma Pelosi: “How do you think I got to be Speaker of the House so I could take impeachment off the table so that President Bush and his criminal administration could escape accountability for lying our country into two cruel and unnecessary wars — I mean — ‘actions’?”

85% likely within 2 weeks some Phkin Idiot somewhere in the world, “You Know that Ph’in Idiot also Don’t You!!!!!, pushes the button & Nuke F’ing war is on because every other idiot has to hit the button, send his birds flying & destroys all humans on the planet.

Mean while Cannabis remains completely illegal in Oklahoma so I’ll have another beer Thanks a U ignorant Sheeeets!, It’s been a great F’ing War B..itches!

Vietnam “era” veteran? Or Vietnam veteran?
If Vietnam veteran, why are you agitating to get into another stupid exercise in destruction?
I don’t actually care what you did 40 years ago. What are you doing now?
Chickenhawking?

Where’s the U.N. Inspectors’ report that I asked for?
If you don’t have it, you got nothin’.

I’m honored that you accuse me of lying, irrationality, and lack of intelligence. That’s a fact.
I judge myself by my enemies. I must be doin’ something right.
Thought I’d provide a fact, since you complained that I had none.

sorry but you are wrong once again on all counts. From all reports that I have read there is not much question about the FACT of the attack. The UN has said that they will not say WHO did it. Now most folks would say and given US intel, and the fact that thousands were killed, it is a good bet Assad was responsible. Now if it had been a few score victims, I think you could say the rebels might also be responsible. I put the odds for the latest being Assad, at about 90%, and for a lot less, the odds would go down to about 50/50 as who would have done it. The rebels would not have access to enough gas to do that amount of damage or the resources. If they got hold of some sarin, they might have been able and have an incentive to use it on their so called allies in the fight against Assad.

For me personally I am a Vietnam era veteran, so your libel shows you to be ignorant and a liar to boot. It says all that needs to be said about YOU and your lack of intelligence, facts, and total irrationality.

Itchindog, I see that the only thing you learned from Vietnam is that the US and its military is BAD, other guys GOOD, or if not exactly good, then poor “victims”. I think that not only ignores the lessons of Vietnam, but requires no thought or looking at each situation on its own. That was one of the lessons of Vietnam, that the US looked at Vietnam through the prism of WWII and Munich. The US failed to look at the FACTS and the history. I see that you make the same mistake and have no learned anything, but a lockstep cultist pacifism.

I think most rational people can look at Obama and his Libya actions and can see that air strikes do NOT equal war and ground troops, even though ALL the GOP and their pacifist nut allies said it DID mean war for the US. I am still waiting for you to admit you were wrong and apologize for telling lies. You also use a rather dumb comparison by saying that since Bush lied, Obama is lying. Unless you can show me something called proof, it is YOU who is the liar. Your logic if that is what one can call it, is not valid.

I am rather amused at this coalition in the House which will more than likely vote against Obama. The Tea party nuts of extreme rightwingers, in alliance with the leftwing nuts. At least I can see their affinity for each other on this since neither of them rely on rational thought, it is just party politics for the right wing to defeat Obama on anything at any cost, and the radical pacifists who hate the US military joining together to hate Obama. It is like the KPD in Germany joining with the Nazis to get rid of the Social Democrats in the elections. The pacifists will be eaten alive by their allies once this one is over, and you folks will be lucky to stay out of jail if they come to power.

I like the letter to Congressman by Frank way up above and the comments by Frank and Michael Murray. If we could not learn from our national disaster in Vietnam then we can not learn. Nancy Pelosi is an old nitwit.

Whether or not you support the U.S. decision to go to war with Syria, there is no denying the blatant hypocrisy in the justification that the U.S. should intervene because of Bashar al-Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons.
Here are three of biggest hypocrisies:

1. The U.S. supported one of the worst chemical warfare attacks in history.
In a bombshell, though under-reported, story from last week, Foreign Policy revealed CIA files that prove the United States helped Saddam Hussein as he was launching some of the worst chemical attacks in human history against Iran in 1988. The files show that the U.S. knew about — and did nothing to stop — a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has experienced to date. The U.S. continued to provide Iraq with military and intelligence aid, despite knowing that Hussein was using the same chemical weapon — sarin gas — that Assad is allegedly using today.

2. The U.S. used chemical weapons during the 2003 Iraq war.
During the Gulf War, the U.S. classified white phosphorus as a “chemical” weapon when Saddam Hussein was using it against the Kurds. Yet, fast-forward to the 2003 Iraq War and the U.S. identified white phosphorus as a “conventional” weapon to justify their use of it in Fallujah. The use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium during the Iraq War has led to a rise in birth defects and cancer rates in the country, even ten years after the start of the war.

3. The U.S. allowed companies to manufacture and export components used to make the same chemical weapon that Assad allegedly used in Syria.
I have previously written about the horrendous U.S. policy that allows companies to continue to manufacture and export chemicals after they have been banned for domestic use. So it comes as no surprise that in 1992 when a cargo jet bound for Israel from the U.S. crashed in the Netherlands, a component of the nerve gas sarin was found aboard the plane. More recently, Britain allowed a company to export nerve gas chemicals to Syria, 10 months after the Syrian uprising began. British Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted that he understands and supports Barack Obama’s position on Syria. So even though Britain sold nerve gas chemicals to Syria, Cameron is apparently shocked that Assad may have actually used them.
If the U.S. wants to continue the state of perpetual war that the military industrial complex depends on, just admit it. Let’s stop pretending that we’re going to war with Syria because Assad allegedly used chemical weapons.

frankmas, the point raised in the article are simply wrong. One, Obama is not responsible for Reagan and Bush’s failures. You seem to think that since Bush lied about WMDs that Obama is lying now about the poison gas attacks. Of course, you have to disregard all kinds of facts, which I know does not bother you one bit. The intel Bush used was demonstrably false at the time and the UN weapons inspectors said that there were NO WMDs. I hope that you agree that sarin gas was used since it is NOT US but UN inspectors who have no ties to Obama.

Then this writer forgets that the so called chemical weapons the US used are NOT banned or illegal at all. Too bad you don’t tell the truth either.

Since you do NOT say what specific chemicals were exported to Syria, I can only believe that those chemicals are of many uses, and NOT only for producing sarin gas. Benzene is a component of damn near everything from aspirin to heroin to clothes. So one could say that allowing benzene to be shipped is supplying poison gas chemicals to Syria and while slightly true, would not be accurate. It is the same kind of sophistry and bad propaganda I have seen here recently.